Connection between different function theories in Clifford analysis (Q1910145): Difference between revisions

Let \(e_j\) be generators of the Clifford algebra \(\text{Cl}(0;n)\), i.e. \(e_i e_j + e_j e_i = -2 \delta_{ij} e_0\) with \(e_0=1\). In Clifford analysis, the operators \(D_{ffi} + {\partial}/{\partial y_0} ffi\sum_{j=1}^n e_j {\partial}/{\partial y_j}\) are usually called the generalized Cauchy-Riemann (CR) operators whilst the operator \(\sum_{j=1}^n e_j {\partial}/{\partial y_j}\) is called the Dirac operator. The subject of Clifford analysis is a study of null-solutions of both operators. The following terms are applied to these null-solutions: monogenic, or regular, or hyperholomorphic functions. Of course any null-solution to the Dirac operator gives a special null-solution (such that it does not depend on \(y_0\)) to the generalized CR operator. At the same time the CR and Dirac operators are distinguished essentially by the following algebraic property: If \(\Delta_{\mathbf R^{n+1}}\) and \(\Delta_{\mathbf R^n}\) are the corresponding Laplace operators then \(D_+ D_- = D_- D_+ = \Delta_{\mathbf R^{n+1}}\) and \((\sum_{j=1}^n e_j \partial/\partial x_j)^2 = - \Delta_{\mathbf R^n}\). The main goal of the paper is to establish a direct relation between null-solutions for \(D_-\) and \(D_- + M\), where \(M\) is a bounded operator commuting with \(D_-\). Let \(M_1\) and \(M_2\) be two such operators. Theorem 2.5 says that \(f\) is a null-solution to \(D_- + M_1\) if and only if the function \(g\), defined by the rule \(g(y) = e^{y_0M_2} e^{-y_0M_1}f(y)\), is a null-solution to \(D_- + M^2\). Taking \(M_2 = 0\) (or \(M_1 = 0\)) one gets the above-mentioned relation between \(D_-\) and \(D_- + M\), on the basis of which the author makes some conclusions concerning function theory for \(D_- + M\) starting from function theory for \(D_-\). As the author mentions, he ''would like to present here basic ideas rather than to achieve (even if it is possible) the final level of generality''. This explains the lack of details in the work. Nevertheless some important details are too essential to be omitted. For instance, it is necessary from the very beginning (see p. 65, the method of constructing the fundamental solution to \(D_-\)) to require \(y_0 \neq 0\). Hence the case of null-solutions to the Dirac operator requires (at least) additional arguments, and thus it is not obvious if the author's approach could be applied directly to the operator \(\sum_{j=1}^n e_j {\partial}/{\partial x_j} + M_\lambda\), \(M_\lambda f: f \lambda\), \(\lambda \in \text{Cl} (0;n)\), as the author states on p. 64. It is important because, as a matter of fact, just t his disturbed Dirac (not CR) operator was studied in the articles cited by the author, as well as in the book by \textit{K. Gürlebeck} and \textit{W. Sprössig} [Quaternionic analysis and elliptic boundary value problems, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, (1989; Zbl 0699.35007)] and in many other works. It should also be mentioned that it is unclear why the equation (2.6) on p. 66 is the Dirac equation for a particle with a nonzero rest mass: the latter is hyperbolic whilst the equation (2.6) is obviously elliptic. In my opinion, these (and other) unclear assertions should make the reader be very cautious about accepting the work on the whole.